RSS Feed

Email Feed

July 21, 2005

A Complex of Nano Factors

The development of molecular manufacturing—an advanced form of nanotechnology—will be a hinge point in history. Like the invention of the printing press, steam engines, and computers, molecular manufacturing will transform business, industry, social structures, and the balance of world power. The question is not if, but when. . .

Making effective policy for the safe and responsible use of advanced nanotechnology will require a deep and comprehensive understanding of all six dimensions of development—and all the different directions within those dimensions. Solutions that appear to work in one area might contradict solutions in other areas. To be effective, a coordinated and integrated strategy of multiple complimentary policies must be designed and implemented. Clearly, this will be a daunting challenge.

Until molecular manufacturing is fully developed, there may be little apparent incentive for policy creation. But the late stages of development could occur very rapidly, and the inherent ease of proliferation after development will likely spread the disruptive effects much faster than existing policy can handle. The issues involved are highly complex, include multiple factors, and may take years to sort through. . .

That's from "Dimensions of Development," a new essay by Mike Treder, published by Future Brief. Click here to read more.

Comments

You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.

I'm not sure what you hope to gain with all this "slowly, slowly" policy advice.

If, when the Wright brothers set out to accomplish heavier-than-air flight, there had been people saying, "we should go slow or else someone might crash and get hurt," then Kittyhawk wouldn't be famous--some other less regualted site in some other country would be.

You're right about the "when, not if" this technology will arrive and change the course of human civilization forever. However, the breakthrough accomplishments that history will remember will come from those least concerned with the "responsible" aspect of nanotech.

Let's accomplish the big breakthroughs first, and then worry about making them safer second. Otherwise, the world is going to remember places like Korea, China, or India for transforming business, industry, social structures, and the balance of world power.

Jay wrote: I'm not sure what you hope to gain with all this "slowly, slowly" policy advice.

I'm not sure where you think I said we should go "slowly, slowly" in either policy or in the technology. I have said many times that molecular manufacturing should be developed and implemented as rapidly as it can be done safely and responsibly.

International agreements may be a necessity to avert worldwide chaos, despotism, and/or war. Determining what is needed will require extensive and intense study. Any global agreements must be planned carefully and wisely. Because it will take a long time to design and then deploy such solutions, it is urgent that we begin as soon as possible.

I like the Dimensions of Development paper. Certain MM research program structures may be found to be inherently more likely to yield non-suicidal results than others. If these "responsible" characteristics could be isolated, a report card could be issued by CRN to assess which known MM efforts are following an A+ path to our civilization's prosperity, and which are failing. Some prospective donors or personnel might be more likely support responsible efforts, if the characteristics of these could be surmised.

To elaborate on the idea of ranking MM efforts: A Nanhattan won't make their efforts public. And if details of such secrets were ever made public, the publisher would likely mysteriously disappear, or suffer a sudden heart, or be shot by Jack Ruby... so the default is to assume ALL nations have a functional Nanhattan.
How to rank them according to safety? Well, the purpose of a Nanhattan would be to gain military hedgemony, so the rest of us would be as weak and powerless against Nanhattan adminstrators as our current world's poorest are against the rest of the world's administation. I suggest using a guideline which measures how well each nation of the world presently acts to administer development to powerless populations.

http://www.undp.org/oslocentre/docsoslo/events/Achieving%20the%20MDGs%20Strengthening%20Mutual%20Accountability/rankrich.pdf
I googled this ranking of 21 of the richest nations. The Danes, Portugal and the Dutch come out on top. Canada, Aussies, Japan and USA finish at the back of the pack. Incidentally, all of the nations on this list would probably finish well in a truly global ranking. International development assistance doesn't seem like a bad marker of assessing MM stewardship responsibility.

Muhammad, you can send proposals to me; cphoenix at crnano.org. Please don't use contractions like thanx in your proposal, and please make sure you know the difference between molecular manufacturing and nanoscale technologies.